Terrorism in Bible – John

John

3.36 – If you do not believe in the ‘son of God’, you shall suffer the wrath of God forever. (If God wants everyone to believe only Him, then why the hell did He allow so many religions to come up? Why the hell does He allow people to be born in the families of non-believers? I can't believe these to be the words of God. They sound pretty sadistic to me.)

12.48 – If you don’t believe in Jesus, you have a ‘one way ticket’ to hell.

15.6 – If you do not believe, you will be cast into fire and burned.

15.22 – As Jesus has come, the non-believers have no right/excuse not to believe in the ‘true doctrine’ preached by Jesus. (Great statement!!! One man visits a tiny desert country and preaches some ‘doctrine’. It wipes away the ‘right to use the brains’ from the entire humanity.)

Rampant anti-Semitism is found in the following areas of this Gospel:

5.16-18, 7.1, 7.13, 8.44, 11.8 and 20.19

The whole chapter 19 is hell bent on blaming the Jews for the ‘crucifixion’ of Christ. These ‘statements’ have lead to the persecution of Jews over several centuries. Let us use some common-sense in this case. If the Jews did crucify Jesus, didn’t they do a favour to humanity as per the Christian doctrine? After all, they ensured that the ‘Son of God’ dies and thereby, washes away the sins of humans. So, why should the Jews be condemned? Shouldn’t their work be praised? But then, the ‘authors’ of the Gospels do appear to lack ‘common sense’ and ‘rational thinking’. Therefore, it is too much to expect from them.

Terrorism in Bible: Mark and Luke

Mark:

6.11 – If your city does not receive the message of Jesus’ apostles, it will be destroyed in a manner worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. What a great mercy!

16.16 – If you do not get baptized and do not believe in Christian doctrine, you will be damned (i.e. sent to hell).

Luke:

3.17: “.....the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” It is stated that Jesus will burn the damned souls with unquenchable fire. It certainly does not appear merciful. Anyone who is not baptised is damned and then, they will be thrown to hell for eternal suffering. So, even His Holiness Dalai Lama, who has not harmed a single life, is damned to such a suffering according to this book.

10.10-15: Once again (like in Mark), the cities that do not receive the apostles’ message are damned to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah (whose entire population was butchered by God).

11.23: “He that is not with me is against me...” Doesn’t the so called God speak like the leader of a terrorist gang??

13.24-28: Very few people will go to heaven. Others will suffer eternal damnation in hell. It certainly does not appear to be a ‘merciful, loving God’ to me. If this is the meaning of the words ‘mercy’ and ‘love’ according to the Christian scholars then there must be something very wrong with their thinking process.

19.27: The parable of talents – God orders that those who do not accept ‘His reign’ over them shall be slain before His eyes. It looks like an order to kill unbelievers.

Terrorism in Bible – New Testament Gospels – Matthew:

There is a claim made by some Christian ‘scholars’ that New Testament is a book of peace. Their claim is that violence is found only in Old Testament. The doctrine of modern Christianity is found in New Testament and that New Testament is void of such bloodthirsty passages. If so, why is that Christianity killed millions in the Americas and other Pagan lands. Why it is that Inquisition was a reign of terror in Goa? Why is it that Portuguese and French destroyed Hindu temples in the name of Christianity in South India? The very claim that New Testament is a ‘book of peace’ is wrong. It is as bloodthirsty as other texts. Moreover, it was the New Testament which gave the ‘verdict against Jews’ which has been used by the Christians to massacre the Jews throughout several centuries.

Let us have a look at the ‘Holy Gospels’ now.

Matthew:

8.12: The children of kingdom (Jews) will be cast out of Israel. Perhaps, God is not satisfied with the Jews’ inhuman killings. After all, they did not indulge in some massacres which were ordered by God. Whatever, God condemns the Jews to a miserable living.

10.14-15: Jesus says that those cities, which do not receive the message of his disciples, shall suffer a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorroh (which were completely destroyed by God – even little children were not left alive).

10.21: “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Jesus seems to be a destroyer of families. Is this the person whom Christians refer to as ‘lamb’?

10.34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Jesus says that he has not come to send peace. What more proof is necessary?

10.35-36: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.”

11.21-24: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” Jesus condemns entire cities to death and a horrible fate. Surely, it looks like a proclamation of Devil (if there exists one) than God.

23.31: Jesus condemns the Jews. He calls them as the children of those people who killed the prophets. Perhaps, he thinks that children must be punished for the parents’ mistake. What a great sense of justice!!

25.41: If Jesus does not like someone, he will cast them into everlasting fire. We have seen that it takes very less to make Jesus ‘dislike’ you. It also appears that Jesus does not believe in second chances. What sort of Devil has New Testament invented for a God?

27.25: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” This verse has been used by the Christians for several centuries to vilify the Jews and persecute them. But I think that crucifixion could not have occurred as shown in the Gospels. If Jesus had committed religious heresy, the Jews had every right to punish him. They would not have taken him to the Romans. So it appears that Jesus (if at all he is historical) committed a secular crime for which he was crucified by the Romans. Moreover, the Roman governor (Pilate) is recorded as a ruthless ruler and almost inhuman in the historical documents. Only the Gospels show him as a man of peace and justice with a very humane face. It looks like the writers of the Gospels wanted to gain favor from the Romans and hence, they vilified the Jews and commended Pilate in their ‘Gospel lies’. Finally, the Roman system of justice was so strong that even a inhuman person cannot condemn someone without proper evidence. As such, this scene could have never occurred in a Roman court. The entire 'Passion of Christ' is filled with lots of loopholes and mountains of lies.

Terrorism in Bible - Isaiah

Isaiah

2.18: God will utterly abolish the idols. (May I know why God suffers from such insecurity?)

5.24-25: God will tear the bodies of those who do not follow the rules laid down by Him. (Note that God does not say about ‘hurting fellow humans’ warranting such punishment but simply not following the ‘rules’. Those very rules also include killing entire races as per God’s command!!)

9.17: God hates the widows and children of the hypocrites. He punishes them for the misdeed of their husbands/fathers. (What sort of justice is this?)

9.19 – 20: When God gets angry, he will force the people to burn their brothers and eat their flesh. (Terrorise the followers into following His orders blindly)

13.15 – 18: God will not only kill the sinners but kill their children and rape their wives (what a ‘pious’ act!!). Even the children and the pregnant women with their foetuses will not be spared from God’s (more like a devil) anger.

14.21: God will kill the children for the iniquity of the fathers.

Isaiah 15 and 16 are full of God’s tales about how Moab shall be destroyed. He will destroy the entire land and its population. If anyone survives, God will send lions to finish them off. Complete destruction of Moab in 3 years is prophesied.

Isaiah 17 is about God will destroy Syria with its capital Damascus. (God says that Damascus will never be inhabited again. But it is even now a very highly populated city and the capital of Syria. Perhaps Biblical God must improve His divination skills.)

Isaiah 18 is about God will destroy the nations beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

Isaiah 19 is about how God will destroy Egypt.

19.1: God will destroy the idols of Egypt. He will destroy the country.

19.2 – 4: God shall make the Egyptians fight one another (brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour etc). He will make them live under a cruel king.

19.5: God says that Nile (river of Egypt) will go dry. It has never occurred in history and is still flowing with water around the year.

Isaiah 24 is about the Apocalypse. God will turn the earth upside down (??!!). Burn all the inhabitants of earth except a few. He will even make the earth reel like a drunkard as he will weaken the foundation (earthquakes). [God seems to be very fond of terrorising His followers into following His commands. After all, no normal thinking human will even consider following the commands of such a ‘God’.)

[Note: I think that I will stop citing from Old Testament for the time being. I’ll start with the New Testament. I am disgusted with these ridiculous and cruel writings. Now that we have seen the amount of cruelty and terrorism inherently present in Old Testament, we will look at the New Testament. (Only a part of Isaiah (chapters 1 to 24) is covered in this post. The chapters from 25 to 66 have not been covered)]

Terrorism in Bible - Psalms (Part 2)

Psalms:

68.23: “That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.” Very blood thirsty to be spoken by God. It seems that God wants the ‘believers’ to behave like blood thirsty hounds.

78.21-34: God burns and kills several humans because they do not believe in his existence. (How can anyone accept an insecure personality as God? Do we need such a God?)

106.34: The Israelis did not destroy those nations that God had commanded to be destroyed. This is seen as a great sin. Is it a crime ‘not’ to destroy entire nations with their whole population? In this chapter, the worship of other Gods is also seen as a sin.

109.10: Not only is a man to die early because he is an enemy (a heathen) but his children should suffer as well. The reason: well, they are the children of an enemy; should there be any more reason?

110.6: God shall fill the lands with the bodies of heathens. It seems that being a heathen is a crime fit for death sentence. Knowing the various acts of God, we can safely conclude that this ‘cleansing process’ will also include the death of little children.

135.8: God is praised for having killed the firstborn children of Egyptians (whatever did those children do to God?) and also those of the beasts of Egyptians (well, perhaps God needs to be hounded by animal rights activists).

[135.5 – On a lighter note, this line says ‘our Lord is above all gods’. It seems Bible is not as ‘monotheistic’ as the Christians want us to believe. The Israelis had a God who they believed to be better than all the other Gods.]

Terrorism in Bible - Psalms (Part 1)

Psalms

2.8,9 – God promises the believers that He will make the heathens as slaves to the believers and enable the believers to destroy the heathens like a potter’s vessel.

21.9,10 – If God gets angry, he will not only kill you but also your children.

50.22 – If you forget God, God will tear you into pieces.

52.5,6 – If you do not believe in God, He will destroy you and the righteous will laugh at your destruction.

58.3 – Wicked people are wicked even from their birth. As soon as they are born, they go astray by speaking lies. (It gives a blanket cover all the atrocities committed by the believers upon the heathens. After all, all the heathens, including the children, are wicked from their birth.)

58.6-10: God shall break the teeth of the wicked (which includes the heathens), and cut them into pieces. The righteous will rejoice by washing their feet in the blood (what a lovely washing solution?!!).

59.5-8 – God shall kill all the heathens. The silly reasons for this sentence are: the heathens return at the evening, make noise like a dog and go around the city, belch out with their mouth etc. God shall laugh as He kills the heathens.

60.7,8 – God says “Gilead is mine, and Manasseh is mine; Ephraim also is the strength of mine head; Judah is my lawgiver; Moab is my washpot; over Edom will I cast out my shoe: Philistia, triumph thou because of me.” Wow! Certain lands belong to God as He likes them. He does not like some other lands and so He indulges in name calling and even proclaims that he will throw his shoe upon them. Is this God we are talking about or some pre-teen whiny kid or perhaps some ancient terrorist who had motives similar to Bin-Laden?

'Hindu Terror' - A Nonsensical term

'Hindu Terror' and 'Saffron Terror' have become the most popular words for the media (especially English media) in India these few days. As usual, the credit for the 'invention' of this word goes to the communists. I wonder whether these self styled 'secularists' (be it the politicians or the 'editors' of various english newspapers or the 'analysts' of the news channels) have ever given thought about what the term means (or accuses) and why is it that Hindus like me oppose the term.
When I say 'Islamic terrorism', the reason for the usage of that term is very simple: Islam envisages Jihad against the non-believers (especially the Pagans). Jihadis use the Quranic verses to justify their actions. They cite from the Hadiths to show that their actions are sanctioned by Allah. Take for example, the case of the 9/11 hijackers or even Indian Mujahideen's letters after the Ahmedabad blasts. The terrorist activities are driven by the Islamic theology and doctrine. Apologists make great claims stating that Islam is a religion of peace and that the 'verse of sword' (Quran 9.5) should be read in the right context (that is we should blindly accept whatever they say about that verse). They also claim that Jihad is more an 'internal struggle'. More popular is the quote 'To you your religion and to me my religion' which is used by the apologists to 'show' that Islam is a very 'tolerant' religion. Their belief is that since most non-Muslims never read the Quran and even the few who read it never bother to read the traditional orthodox commentaries (they do not know how the Mullahs interpret Quran nor do they know about the peculiar features involved in it). There is something called the 'doctrine of abrogation' (which finds mention in Quran 2.106 and 16.101). According to this, when two verses appear to be conflicting, the later verses (or 'revelations' as the Muslims claim it to be) are to be considered as valid as the later verses abrogate the earlier verses upon the subject. In this context, verse of sword is the last revelation on the Jihadi policy. Let us see what the verse says:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”.
The only option for Pagans like me is 'death' or 'conversion'. The same policy was applied to the Hindus of Malabar by Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The 'jihadis' do their 'holy' acts of war (terrorist attacks) based on this verse and many such verses. Their acts of terrorism are supported by the Islamic doctrine. Hence, it is called 'Islamic terrorism'. Just like the holocaust is considered as 'Nazi act' (it is not called German terrorism) as Holocaust was sponsored and supported by the Nazi doctrine.
This is exactly the reason why I oppose the term 'Hindu terror(ism)'. Are such acts sponsored by Hindu theology? The answer is a huge 'no'. Some Hindus (even if the number of such terrorists are in thousands) may indulge in terrorist activies misguided in thier anger towards the jihadis. Such acts are deplorable. But I can understand the frustation behind those acts. After all, the media and the secular politicians still cries for the 790 Muslims who were killed during the post-Godhra riots but it does not care about the 254 Hindus who were killed during the same riots nor does it care about the Hindus who were killed at the Godhra carnage. The media has never shed so much tears for the thousands of Hindus who have become the victims of Islamic terrorism in J&K and other parts of this nation. It makes me wonder whether they consider the 'Hindu lives' to be much cheaper compared to the precious 'Muslim lives'. Whatever be the situation, I still cannot (and will not) condone terror acts committed by these misguided Hindus. But such acts cannot be called 'Hindu terrorism' because their acts are not propelled by Hindu theology. Such acts are not sanctioned by the Hindu texts nor do the the perperators claim that such acts 'reserve a space in heaven among the houris'. Being so, how can the word 'Hindu terror' be used in any context. It is neither driven nor supported by Hindu theology. Just because some Hindus involve in terrorist activities, it cannot be called 'Hindu terror'. Let us assume some journalists killed a few people in terrorist activities. Will it be called 'journalist terrorism'? We may say that those journalists are terrorists but it will never be nor can it be called as 'journalists terrorism'. Similar is the case with the present situation. Some Hindus may have become terrorists. But there is nothing called 'Hindu terrorism'. What has happened is a misguided reaction to the attacks on the Hindus. It is not driven by some 'holy book' preaching a '(un)holy war' against 'non-believers'.
May some common-sense prevail upon the 'media-wallahs'.